Minimum Rating Requirement for a Chess Coach?

I've noticed alot of people, particularly on the 'Beginner' and 'Chess Lessons' sub-forums offering advice and coaching services, whilst themselves still having what I'd class as a beginner rating (<sub 1400).

Whilst I have no personal issues with a 1000/1200 player chiming in a thread with some thoughts and tips, I do raise a brow when I see them writing articles, and quoting prices for coaching services - especially when alot of the free advice they're given out often has holes in it.
I saw one 1300 player quoting $30 USD per hour for chess lessons.

It's not made any easier when their target audience of other beginners might not understand rating ranges and that many in the 1200-1600 range still have a lot of fundamental gaps in their own play themselves.

Personally, I'd say you should have at least an 1800, ideally over 2000 rating before starting to charge for lessons. What are your thoughts?

I know USCF C players that are excellent coaches for beginners.  I also know titled players that are horrible at coaching.  Its not always about rating.  Its about the ability to explain.

There are of course certain players who are high rated that might not be great at explaining, but there's also a credibility issue with charging for services if the person themselves have failed to implement it themselves.

It's not solely based on rating, but demonstrating a competence with chess yourself is definitely a part of it for me. Although chess.com do not require a minimum FIDE rating to be labelled as a coach here, they still do require you have one (or another nationally recognized rating) which helps cut down rouge coaches but you also dont need to be labelled as a chess.com verified coach to offer your services on here.

Anecdotally today, I saw a 1300 quoting $30 USD/hour, and a 1500 blitz rated player quoting an RS amount in their local currency, with the bio "I am a pro coach and have coached GMs, IMs and other titled players"... 

To your point, I think a class C (touching 1500+ USCF) is approaching the minimum knowledge to coach, but a 1300 chess.com rating is barely class D.

Please understand that I am not saying you're wrong.  Obviously rating is part of it, but being able to explain is more important.  Chess like anything is about knowing your audience.  Knowing how to explain.  Knowing how to break down the "why" behind a move, or position. 

Now as far as making a business out of it?  Sure...being a title player will bring much more credibility, but it still comes down to being able to explain things, and break things down to your target audience. 

I would rather pay a USCF A/Expert player that is excellent at explaining things, then a IM/GM that is talking above my skill level.

"Anecdotally today, I saw a 1300 quoting $30 USD/hour, and a 1500 blitz rated player quoting an RS amount in their local currency, with the bio "I am a pro coach and have coached GMs, IMs and other titled players"..."

This is where the saying "A fool and his money are soon parted" comes in :-)

"...but a 1300 chess.com rating is barely class D."

Online ratings mean squat, unless you're an established titled player.  And yea...sadly I have seen these posts about people bragging about there online blitz rating, and thinking they are coaches. 

Lol agreed. I guess it just irritates me when I see people divert other beginners from getting good solid coaching from an intermediate, expert or higher - to getting patchy coaching from themselves.

Unfortunately in today's digital world, all you need to be a "coach" is the internet.  But it is still up to the person to due their homework.

I think, as a general rule, 2200 FIDE is a good baseline for being a coach.

Below that, an instructor might not have a firm enough grasp of the game to teach it properly, even if their intentions are well placed.

But there are always exceptions.

Depends on the purpose I suppose. Even a 1200 can coach a complete beginner to get started, which is usually the way most people learn the rules and basics of the game. Someone they know occasionally plays chess and breaks down the basics. After all, giving basic instructions like develop the pieces, control the centre, castle quick, protect your pieces and take opponents free pieces, is already enough to get a pretty solid grasp of the general concepts to get one going.

However, when it comes to teaching ambitious players (beginners or otherwise) beyond the basics it's probably better to have a coach who is at least an expert or close to it. Obviously being a master gives a lot of credibility and I'm not sure if I'd be willing to pay money for the coaching to anyone below master level.

So that being said, if you want to charge money for your coaching services, you should probably be at least an expert (preferably a master) or offer your services clearly to beginners only.

To be clear, I have no issues with a 1300 coaching up a 500 for free, but I think charging for it is where it gets a bit dubious.

You probably should be at least an intermediate to start to charge? 

A coach should have a title, like a teacher should have a diploma.
A C-player may be good at explaining, but will tell you many things that are wrong and that you will have to unlearn later.

The problem with this is that we are all human, and we all make mistakes.  A USCF C player is perfectly capable of being a good coach for beginners.  As long as they stick to what they know, and dont try to sound smarter than they are.

I think anyone at least 400 points higher than their student(s) should be fine.

Even 1 rating level (200 points) is fine.  But again, as long as that person knows who to stay withing what they know.

I think that depends on the person's age and how much they've actually learned.

A 2200 rated 10 year old would be a bad coach for a variety of reasons.

An old 1600 player who can't preform, but has learned a lot, can share that knowledge.

I know a young man that is almost USCF 1900, and will go on to become a very good player.  He is way better than i ever was.  OTB play he would beat me most of the time.  But when it comes to teaching the game?  He does not have the ability to explain things, and doesnt have the ability to "know his audience".

and at what rating level do you think it’s ok to charge?

a 1200 charging $ on these forums to coach up to 800 would be fine?

I peaked as a USCF A player.  I charged $8/Hour.  I was told that i should charge more, so i went to $10/Hour.  After a few years of teaching, I was again told i should charge more.  So I sent to $15/Hour.  Finally i ended up at $20/Hour.  Some would say that is to much for someone of my ability.  But the people that were paying it were happy with it, and what it produced.

I don't want to get into specific ratings but I know some fairly weak older players that teach classes of kids (beginners) and are terrific motivators, well respected, and as such the kids progress a lot due to the passion of the teacher.

I've seen GMs walk into similar classes and start by saying something like "today I will show great idea in Grunfeld main line..."